S&S D Duplex

[Isaac OLEG]

Del,

I know you don't really agree with that, but is not the compression
crowned allowing , under optimal configuration a more "nervous" board
(I understand my terminology is poor there).

Or is it only easier to obtain a good response from a board with this
method (even if the board last less after that) ?

I like to understand where lies the difference in tone between the 2
methods.

(in 15 lines ;>)

Regards.

Isaac OLEG


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Delwin D Fandrich [mailto:pianobuilders@olynet.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 22 novembre 2002 19:49
> À : oleg-i@wanadoo.fr; Pianotech
> Objet : Re: S&S D Duplex
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Isaac OLEG" <oleg-i@wanadoo.fr>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: November 22, 2002 10:36 AM
> Subject: RE: S&S D Duplex
>
>
> > Ron,
> >
> > Is not it more or less a back post problem , that allows the
> > soundboard to be less stiff in there , is not one missing
> under the
> > killer zone ?
> >
> > Tell that because of the use I've seen of an metal apparatus to
> > reinforce the linkage there .
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > Isaac OLEG
> >
>
> Isaac,
>
> Yes the lack of a bellybrace ('back posts' are usually reserved for
> uprights) in the region does contribute to the problem. It
> allows the
> bellyrail to rotate slightly in response to the motion of
> the soundboard.
> Especially in the case of a rather lightly built bellyrail
> such as Steinway
> uses. But the main problem is the soundboard design and the
> process by which
> it is made -- i.e., compression crowning.
>
> Del
>
>